Carved stone balls
The reading passage and the lecturer both discuss carved stone balls. The reading claims that there are some theories about these stone balls. However, the lecturer believes that the theories mentioned in the reading are not convincing and presents some evidence to refute them all.
To begin with, the reading argues that the carved stone balls were used as a weapon in hunting or fighting. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that in ancient times, people had used another weapon such as arrow in hunting or fighting. In addition, these carved stone balls did not have damaged because if these stone balls were used in hunting or fighting, they would have been damaged.
Furthermore, the author holds up the fact that these carved stone balls were used such as part of the primitive system of measures. Therefore, they could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of materials. On contrast, the speaker underlines the fact that it is true that these carved stone balls have the same shape but the material of these balls had different from each other. In other words, the density of stones was different and they could not use to measure quantities of materials.
Finally, the reading passage asserts that the carved stone balls were as a social propose and social status. But, the professor dismisses this issue due to the fact when an important person died; his or her social status was buried with her or him. However, in grave, archaeologists did not find any carved stone balls.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 471, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...stones was different and they could not use to measure quantities of materials. ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, in addition, such as, in other words, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1274.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9765625 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32021714345 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.49609375 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.774352353 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.0 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.469347950692 0.272083759551 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.196699124555 0.0996497079465 197% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.158403278301 0.0662205650399 239% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.291088339597 0.162205337803 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0794930068502 0.0443174109184 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.